the six structures into one building in 1850, added two additional stories, and called the new business the Willard Hotel. In 1854, Tayloe leased the property again to Willard, this time for 10 years at a rate of $1,200 per year. The lease contained a provision that Willard could purchase the entire property at any time during the life of the lease for $22,500—$2,000 in "cash" down payment and another $2,000 a year (plus interest) thereafter until the mortgage was paid. During the lease, the American Civil War broke out and property values in Washington, D.C., skyrocketed. Nearly all Northern banks suspended the use of specie (money backed by gold deposits) due to bank runs, and the federal government followed suit shortly thereafter. In 1863, Congress passed the National Banking Act, which authorized the federal government to issue United States Notes (paper money) rather than coins made of gold or silver. The U.S. Notes were not convertible into gold, and quickly depreciated in value. On April 15, 1864, two weeks before the lease was due to expire, Willard tendered the down payment to Tayloe in paper money. Tayloe refused to issue the mortgage and turn over the deed, claiming that the hotel was now worth much more than $22,500 and that Willard had not paid in gold (the only form of cash available in 1854) as specified in the lease. Worse, due to inflation, the Notes were worth only about half what gold specie was worth. Willard sued for relief. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia held in favor of Tayloe. Willard appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. Decision Majority opinion Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. Justice Field concluded that contract law usually required courts to apply the terms of the contract as specified. But relief in cases of equity is a matter of discretion: "When a contract is of this character, it is the usual practice of courts of equity to enforce its specific execution upon the application of the party who has complied with its stipulations on his part or has seasonably and in good faith offered and continues ready to comply with them. But it is not the invariable practice. This form of relief is not a matter of absolute right to either party; it is a matter resting in the discretion of the court,